A formal hearing before a panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys was held
on December 17, 1998. The Disciplinary Administrator appeared by and through Frank D.
Diehl, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator. Respondent appeared in person. There were no other
appearances. Neither party objected to the panel as constituted, notice of the time and place of
hearing, or the panel's jurisdiction of this matter.

Respondent did not file an answer to the complaint, in violation of Supreme Court Rule
211 (1998 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 233). Three witnesses, including respondent, testified at the
hearing.

At the close of the evidence, the panel left the record open until December 31, 1998, for
respondent to provide pertinent documents referenced in his testimony concerning the subject
matter of the formal hearing. Thereafter, the panel left the record open for both parties to file
additional comments concerning factors in aggravation and mitigation and any recommendation
for discipline until January 15, 1999. Respondent provided no additional documentation to the
panel and failed to respond by January 15, 1999.

Based upon clear and convincing evidence, a unanimous panel made the following
findings
of fact and conclusions of law. The panel also entered its findings concerning aggravating
circumstances and mitigating circumstances with the recommendation that respondent be
suspended for a period of one year and until such time as he may satisfy the Disciplinary
Administrator with regard to his understanding and appreciation of the Kansas Rules of
Professional Conduct.

"FINDING OF FACT

"2. Jay Vander Velde was assigned to investigate the written complaint of James Randall
against Respondent.
Mr. Randall complained that Respondent failed to return Mr. Randall's calls and answer his
requests for information
about the claims concerning his late mother, Lela Mae Barnes, against the doctors, hospitals and
nursing home who
treated her. Respondent caused Mr. Randall to be appointed administrator of his late mother's
estate. Lela Mae
Barnes died while hospitalized after hip surgery at the Olathe Medical Center in Johnson County.
The surgeon at
the Olathe Medical Center initially began to operate on the wrong hip because the X-ray sent
from the Ottawa
hospital was incorrectly labeled. After realizing his mistake, the surgeon repaired the correct hip.
Ms. Barnes was
approximately 90 years old at the time of the surgery. She died intestate in the hospital about
one week after the
surgery. Her estate consisted mainly of the possible claims her estate and heirs had against the
doctors, hospital and
nursing home.

"3. Respondent opened the estate of Mrs. Barnes and it was decided that Mr. Randall, her
son, would be
administrator, since Mr. Barnes, the decedent's husband, was quite elderly. Respondent wrote to
the doctors, the
hospitals and the nursing home regarding wrongful death and personal injury actions. He
received no response from
any of them. The Barnes' wrongful death file was opened by Respondent's wife who was
practicing with him at the
time. She later left for salaried employment, and he continued the case. Mr. Randall testified
that Mrs. Cole
communicated often and well with him about the case, but after she left in late 1995, it was
difficult to communicate
with Respondent or get information about the case. Mr. Randall's complaint was mailed to the
Disciplinary
Administrator's office in December 1997. In 1998, Respondent eventually told Mr. Randall he
thought the case
might settle, but no settlement offers ever materialized.

"4. Respondent failed to cooperate with the Disciplinary Administrator's office or/and its
investigators
throughout the investigation. Both the Disciplinary Administrator's office and Investigator
Vander Velde wrote
Respondent in December 1997. Respondent did not answer either inquiry. Mr. Vander Velde
wrote again to
Respondent on January 28, 1998, asking for his explanation of the situation. Respondent
promised to reply in
writing, but never did so. Respondent testified he did not respond to the Disciplinary
Administrator's office or to
Investigator Vander Velde because he thought the only action needed was to get in touch with
Mr. Randall, the
complainant, in spite of having received notices to the contrary.

"5. Respondent testified he had no written fee agreement with Mr. Randall or Mr.
Barnes, but he expected
to receive a percentage of any amount recovered in the wrongful death action.

"6. Respondent stated he does mainly criminal defense work and he tried to find another
attorney to take
the wrongful death suit. The age of Mrs. Barnes, which negatively impacted potential damages,
made it difficult to
prosecute the claims, according to Respondent.

"7. Respondent testified under oath that civil actions were filed in both Franklin County
and Johnson
County. Since an earlier investigation by the Disciplinary Administrator had revealed no such
filings, the panel
order Respondent to submit certified copies of all Johnson and Franklin County pleadings not
later than December
31, 1998. The panel's review of Respondent's activities on behalf of his clients was severely
restricted by
Respondent's failure to bring any file materials to the hearing.

"8. Respondent also testified that a medical malpractice screening panel was requested in
Johnson County.
According to Respondent, the screening panel request was dismissed because 'the lawsuit had
been filed.' In fact, the
screening panel request was dismissed for lack of prosecution by Respondent. Further, the
request for screening
panel, filed on the eve of the running of the statute of limitation in August, 1996, stated 'A claim
for personal injury
or death has not yet been formalized by the filing of a petition.

"9. Respondent failed to furnish to the panel the earlier described documents by the
December 31, 1998,
deadline. The panel indirectly learned that Respondent contacted the Disciplinary Administrator
on or about
December 31, 1998, requesting an additional ten days in which to comply. Since Respondent
failed to seek such
extension from the panel, the same was not granted. Chairman Emerson made telephone
requests for certified copies
of court filings on two occasions following said deadline, which requests were ignored by
Respondent. In any event,
the requested documents were never provided by Respondent, all in direct violation of the panel's
direction.

"10. Following the hearing, the Disciplinary Administrator discovered certain records of
the District Court
of Johnson County, Kansas, copies of which were furnished to the panel . . . Specifically, the
records indicate that
Respondent filed a request for a medical malpractice screening panel in August, 1996; that the
request was dismissed
as to one physician on May 30, 1997, for want of prosecution by Respondent; and that the
request was dismissed as
to all health care providers on August 22, 1997, again for want of prosecution by Respondent.

"11. Before issuing this final report, the panel directed the Disciplinary Administrator to
once again search
the records of the Johnson and Franklin County District Courts for any filings by Respondent in
the subject matters.
The second search confirmed that an action was, in fact, filed in Franklin County on August 16,
1996 and in Johnson
County on August 22, 1997. The Franklin County action was dismissed without prejudice with
Respondent's
agreement, on April 8, 1997, and the Johnson County action was dismissed without prejudice for
want of
prosecution on March 13, 1998.

"12. Following the dismissals of the screening panel proceeding and the two civil actions
it appears that
Respondent has done nothing. The applicable statutes of limitation have now run and the
personal injury and
wrongful death claims are forever barred, all due to Respondent's failure to take appropriate legal
action."

"CONCLUSION OF PANEL

"The panel unanimously finds that Respondent has violated Supreme Court Rules 207
and 211 and the
Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5(c), and 8.4 as discussed below.
The panel finds no
violation of KRPC 1.2.

"SCR 207 [Supreme Court Rule 207]--Respondent failed to respond to the notice of
complaint letter directed
to him on December 11, 1997 which requested a written response within ten days. Further, he
ignored the request of
the investigating attorney, Jay W. Vander Velde, dated December 23, 1997 and a second request
of January 28, 1998.
Further, after appearing at the hearing with no file materials, Respondent failed to supply
requested documents to the
panel after promising to do so.

"SCR 211 [Supreme Court Rule 211]--Respondent failed to serve his answer upon the
Disciplinary
Administrator after service of the complaint.

"KRPC 1.1 [(1998 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 279)] Competence--While not alleged as a
violation in the Formal
Complaint, Respondent exhibited a shocking lack of competence in his handling of the
representation assumed.
Specifically, Respondent's lack of competence is shown at every stage of the representation,
commencing with the
failure to have a written fee agreement in a contingent fee matter and continuing on with
Respondent's failure to
pursue actions against the alleged tortfeasors and thus allow the running of the statutes of
limitation, and, in addition,
apparently abandoning a screening panel application. Respondent assumed a representation in
which he admittedly
had no experience or competence.

"KRPC 1.2 Scope of Representation--While Respondent failed to abide by the client's
wishes concerning the
objectives of the representation, such failure falls more appropriately under specific violations
hereinafter noted.

"KRPC 1.3 Diligence--Respondent failed to act with diligence and promptness in
pursuing the personal
injury and wrongful death claims entrusted to him. Specifically, Respondent abandoned the
requested screening
panel review and failed to answer discovery requests in the civil actions, which brought about
dismissals. Respondent
exhibited a total lack of diligence.

"KRPC 1.4 Communication--During Respondent's handling of the representation
following his attorney
wife's departure from the law partnership, there has been a failure to keep the client reasonably
informed. While
Respondent maintains that he regularly and frequently communicated with the decedent's elderly
husband, who was
employed near his Ottawa law office, he admits that his client was complainant James E.
Randall, administrator of
the decedent's estate. Mr. Randall estimated that he has attempted at least three times a month to
find out the status
of the claims, all with little success. Respondent has failed to initiate communication and has not
been available for
telephone or office calls.

"KRPC 1.5(c) [(1998 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 304)] Fees--Respondent was operating under a
somewhat indefinite
contingent fee arrangement which was not reduced to writing as required by KRPC 1.5(c).

"Further, Respondent's agreement to undertake the representation in question when he
was not willing or
able to actively pursue the matter also adversely reflects on his judgment and fitness to practice
law. Specifically,
Respondent admits that the potential damage recovery on behalf of an 89 year old person did not
justify the difficult
and extended litigation involved in such recovery. It is the opinion of the panel that such concern
did not excuse, but
contributed significantly to, Respondent's lack of diligence and failure to communicate."

"AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

"The panel finds the following factors in aggravation applicable to this case:

"(e) Bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing
to comply
with the rules and orders of the disciplinary process;

"(g) Refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct. Respondent denies the
charges of
lack of diligence and failure to communicate with his client. Instead, he seeks to excuse his lack
of
diligence because the case, which he had undertaken, was so hopeless. As to lack of
communication, Respondent again makes an excuse to the effect that he was regularly talking
with
the client's elderly father-in-law at a nearby pharmacy/coffee shop where the latter was
employed;

"(h) Vulnerability of victim--The client, James E. Randall, administrator of the
decedent's
estate and representative of the decedent's family, clearly did not have experience in such matters
and relied completely on the judgment and advice of Respondent, which trust was not met;

"(i) Substantial experience in the practice of law. Respondent was admitted to
practice in
1988 and was employed in government practice for a time. While his private practice experience
was not particularly lengthy in 1995, the panel is concerned about his initial lack of judgment in
accepting a difficult representation which he was not willing to zealously pursue. The panel is
equally concerned that, after 10 years of practice, the Respondent presently has no understanding
of
the Supreme Court Rules pertaining to Discipline of Attorneys.

We also note that following final argument before this court, respondent, on September
17, 1999, submitted a copy of a settlement agreement and release that respondent entered into
with James E. Randall, administrator of the estate of Lela Mae Barnes, deceased, and all the heirs
of Lela Mae Barnes. We acknowledge receipt of the settlement and respondent's payment of
$20,000 to settle the claims outstanding in the Barnes estate; we consider this as a mitigating
factor
in arriving at our final decision.

We also note that respondent and the Disciplinary Administrator provided additional
documentation prior to oral argument before this court indicating that respondent did initiate but
failed to follow through with two petitions for the wrongful death of Lela Mae Barnes filed in
two
different district courts in this state and a memorandum requesting medical malpractice screening
panel pursuant to K.S.A. 65-4901 et seq. We consider the additional documentation
but note that
other than corroborating some of the testimony of respondent before the panel, the additional
documentation has no impact on the violations charged against respondent. We, however,
consider the additional documentation in arriving at our final conclusion.

The court, having considered the record from the final hearing report of the panel, the
arguments of the parties, the additional documents furnished to the court before and after oral
argument, concludes that the panel's findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported by
clear
and convincing evidence. This court adopts the findings and conclusions of the panel.

We particularly agree with the following observation of the panel:

"While the Respondent's violations of the charges contained in the Formal Complaint are
serious, the panel
is equally, and perhaps even more, concerned with Respondent's total lack of respect for the
Supreme Court Rules
governing procedures in disciplinary matters and his failure to comply with the orders of the
panel. The panel
recommends that Respondent be suspended for a period of one year and until such time as he
may satisfy the
Disciplinary Administrator with regard to his understanding and appreciation of the Kansas
Rules of Professional
Conduct."

We adopt the panel's recommendation with a slight modification. We agree that the
appropriate sanction is suspension from the practice of law in the State of Kansas for a period of
one year. Additionally, prior to readmission to practice in this State, we conclude that
respondent
must demonstrate to this court that he has taken and passed the multistate professional
responsibility examination administered by the National Conference of Bar Examiners with a
scale score of 76 or above.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that John W. Cole be suspended from the practice of
law in the State of Kansas for a period of one year commencing on the date of this decision.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as an additional condition for readmission to practice in
this State that the respondent demonstrate to this court that he has taken and passed the multistate
professional responsibility examination administered by the National Conference of Bar
Examiners with a scale score of 76 or above.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall comply with the provisions of
Supreme Court Rule 218(a) (1998 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 246) and at the end of suspension shall
comply with Supreme Court Rule 219 (1998 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 256).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to
respondent
and that this order be published in the official Kansas Reports.